@IsbergRalph @hubermanlab @NIH To be fair, this is what many, many countries have done in the last 70 years - delegating the cost, risk and inefficiency of basic science to the US (and a few other places). To see the US lead not just diminish but collapse will have global ramifications.

@hubermanlab @NIH No

@GuonHuang Wow, this is really bad! Labs will fold with this policy. But maybe that's by design.

RT @PollyHsuLab: Seeing is believing! Now you can visualize your periodic Ribo-seq data for your favorite genes alongside other omics data…

@NC_Renic Don't hold back. The editor will kill it off anyway, but at least then you know you tried.

CD8 + T cells mediate vaccination-induced lymphatic containment of latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection foll…

@shanmeltzer . @VPrasadMDMPH is too busy basking in schadenfreude (or nursing the suspected chip on his shoulder of not getting NIH funding) to care. And he's got a point. Some people don't need NIH funds to do bad science.

@florian_krammer @AmyMcGrathKY It actually wasn't. The sum spent on transgenic animals is far, far greater.

@baym I don't understand this. Money spent making *transgenic* animals must be >>$100m.

@DrStrangeLovett @JohnStreicher1 @Soumees @azfaust Anonymous savant knows what VCs, PIs, business owners and government officials know and think.

@ArditiMd @florian_krammer Which is the same as 60% indirect rate (60/160).

@DrStrangeLovett @Soumees @JohnStreicher1 @azfaust You're conflating running a small business (PI running lab with direct costs) in the context of a massive company (indirects). There's no obvious company equivalent. The head of a small unit in GSK doesn't know what is their fractional share of IT or security costs.

@LordNoodles1988 @rickwood @nntaleb And in practice...

@DrStrangeLovett Sure

@drugmonkeyblog Yes. And it may be that that model will be killed off. But that will only be feasible if some grants come with 100% overhead and others with 10%. At 15%, biomedical basic research is a massive loss proposition.

@rickwood @nntaleb Err, we probably can move a 50-60m wide rock (this one), given sufficient warning. We're not currently able to move a massive, extinction level size object.

@nntaleb To add, I believe NASA has mapped >99% of extreme threat level objects in the solar system and none of their collision probabilities approach anywhere near 1%.